I will say that the article is incorrect in saying that then Bp. TIKHON was "vested." As far as the picture is concerned, he is wearing his exorasso (outer-robe, the black robe with big "floppy" sleeves), his panokalimorfon (the black hat with the black veil), and his mandia (the colorful outer cape with a long train in the back and a slit in the front for his arms and cross/engolopion - the icon of the Panagia on his neck). Each of these pieces is considered episcopal "street wear" and would not be worn by a celebrant bishop, let alone in a service he would consider "divine Liturgy."
Insofar as he has this detail confused, I am wondering now whether or not Dr. Lewis is also confused as to Bp. TIKHON's invitation of the Bishop Grafton and the intention behind it; if he was incorrect on the Bishop's participation/vesting in the Anglican ordination, then it stands to reason that he would have no idea about the role that an Anglican bishop would be able to have in an Orthodox ordination. As it stands, even if Bp. TIKHON laid hands on the aforementioned Anglican Bishop in his ordination, it would not be seen as a sacramental act in the Orthodox church because + TIKHON was not wearing his episcopal vestments. Furthermore, the fact that he did not have on his omoforion on top of his mandia showed that he had no intention of attempting anything even resembling a sacramental act.
If all I have to go on is the story and the photo, then the photo speaks volumes about how the story adds unneccesary conjecture and projection to the events of the day.